# C_2007269EN.01001801.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 20 July 2007 — Ibrahim Altun v Stadt Böblingen

(Case C-337/07)

(2007/C 269/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrahim Altun

Applicant:

Defendant: Stadt Böblingen

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the acquisition of the rights under the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council require that the ‘principal’ person entitled, with whom the member of the family has been legally resident for the period of three years, satisfies the conditions of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 throughout the whole of that period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the acquisition of the rights under the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council require that the ‘principal’ person entitled, with whom the member of the family has been legally resident for the period of three years, satisfies the conditions of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 throughout the whole of that period?

| 2. | Does it suffice in this respect for a member of the family to acquire the rights under the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 that the ‘principal’ person entitled is employed during that period for two years and six months with different employers, is then unemployed through no fault of his own for six months, and also remains unemployed for a substantial period thereafter? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it suffice in this respect for a member of the family to acquire the rights under the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 that the ‘principal’ person entitled is employed during that period for two years and six months with different employers, is then unemployed through no fault of his own for six months, and also remains unemployed for a substantial period thereafter?

| 3. | Can a person also rely on the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 if he, as a member of the family, has received permission to join a Turkish national whose right to stay, and hence his lawful access to the labour force of a Member State, is based solely on the granting of political asylum on the ground of political persecution in Turkey? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a person also rely on the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 if he, as a member of the family, has received permission to join a Turkish national whose right to stay, and hence his lawful access to the labour force of a Member State, is based solely on the granting of political asylum on the ground of political persecution in Turkey?

| 4. | In the event that Question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative: Can a member of the family rely on the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 even if the grant of political asylum, and on that basis the right of stay and lawful access to the labour market of the ‘principal’ person entitled (in this case the father), are based on false statements? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event that Question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative: Can a member of the family rely on the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 even if the grant of political asylum, and on that basis the right of stay and lawful access to the labour market of the ‘principal’ person entitled (in this case the father), are based on false statements?

| 5. | In the event that Question 4 is to be answered in the negative: Is it necessary in such a case, before refusal of the rights under the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to the member of the family, that the rights of the ‘principal’ person entitled (in this case the father) are first formally withdrawn or revoked? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event that Question 4 is to be answered in the negative: Is it necessary in such a case, before refusal of the rights under the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to the member of the family, that the rights of the ‘principal’ person entitled (in this case the father) are first formally withdrawn or revoked?

---